|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2014 23:21:26 GMT -5
That an absence isn't defined by a presence is complicated? Is context, uncomplicated? *sigh* This is the stuff of MT:first meaning. Alternate Reality Scenario: Laffy interjects comment into Max/Quinn discussion. Quinn says, "That's a different context than what we're discussing" (or something along those lines). Laffy, "Oh, okay." See? No MT. Any boundary on a conversation is arbitrary, I could just as easily say that you interjected yourself mid-thread. What you wrote was "different context". In your alternate reality, I simply agree with that ambiguity. How was I supposed to know exactly what you meant by that, especially since at the core of the underlying discussion was the topic of contextual ambiguity? I thought you liked disagreement and challenge. Oh ... that's right ... if someone is challenging you, not so much, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 3, 2014 1:24:47 GMT -5
*sigh* This is the stuff of MT:first meaning. Alternate Reality Scenario: Laffy interjects comment into Max/Quinn discussion. Quinn says, "That's a different context than what we're discussing" (or something along those lines). Laffy, "Oh, okay." See? No MT. Any boundary on a conversation is arbitrary, I could just as easily say that you interjected yourself mid-thread. What you wrote was "different context". In your alternate reality, I simply agree with that ambiguity. How was I supposed to know exactly what you meant by that, especially since at the core of the underlying discussion was the topic of contextual ambiguity? I thought you liked disagreement and challenge. Oh ... that's right ... if someone is challenging you, not so much, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 3, 2014 3:23:13 GMT -5
Any boundary on a conversation is arbitrary, I could just as easily say that you interjected yourself mid-thread. What you wrote was "different context". In your alternate reality, I simply agree with that ambiguity. How was I supposed to know exactly what you meant by that, especially since at the core of the underlying discussion was the topic of contextual ambiguity? I thought you liked disagreement and challenge. Oh ... that's right ... if someone is challenging you, not so much, right? Can you quote me on saying that I enjoy being challenged and disagreed with? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 3, 2014 5:33:19 GMT -5
Can you quote me on saying that I enjoy being challenged and disagreed with? Confucius say: What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 3, 2014 6:22:41 GMT -5
Can you quote me on saying that I enjoy being challenged and disagreed with? Confucius say: What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?  Maybe I misinterpreted your pointing-finger kanji. You'll have to translate. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 3, 2014 6:46:55 GMT -5
Confucius say: What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Maybe I misinterpreted your pointing-finger kanji. You'll have to translate. I read it as #1 like at a football game! But maybe it's the 'no words' symbol from ZD's zen stories. A picture's worth a thousand words...just sometimes hard to tell which words. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 3, 2014 7:18:15 GMT -5
Maybe I misinterpreted your pointing-finger kanji. You'll have to translate. I read it as #1 like at a football game! But maybe it's the 'no words' symbol from ZD's zen stories.A picture's worth a thousand words...just sometimes hard to tell which words.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 3, 2014 13:16:13 GMT -5
Confucius say: What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Maybe I misinterpreted your pointing-finger kanji. You'll have to translate. First, I don't even know what 'MT' means...not that it matters...I mean it matters not.  Confucius say: Laffy like bull in China shop.  ...or, like venerable and humble farmer queries....... considered decaf?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 3, 2014 20:53:29 GMT -5
Maybe I misinterpreted your pointing-finger kanji. You'll have to translate. First, I don't even know what 'MT' means...not that it matters...I mean it matters not. Confucius say: Laffy like bull in China shop. ...or, like venerable and humble farmer queries....... considered decaf? The root of the tizzy with Quin was the question of who it was that had complicated the discussion.  Now, I know that some of what I write gets really twisted, and some of it get's into deep psuedointellectual waters, but in that particular conversation we just both wound up at a point of disagreement and neither one of us wanted to stop poking the other. I still maintain that in that case, I was pulling the topic away from complication rather than deeper into it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 12, 2014 12:08:09 GMT -5
How does "realization" even apply in the context of brain death? The question is sort of like asking, "what would happen if it rained on the moon?" I asked the question because Reefs was saying that mind is not involved in realization. I"m trying to ascertain the degree of absence he sees regarding mind's involvement. His answer of 'the cells are already self-realized' is interesting to say the least...and seems to indicate that perhaps he didn't see the question as far out there as you did. If he'd actually discuss it further, I might get to find out . No, he never wrote that or anything like it ... in fact, in what you seem to take as the reference to that: This in particular is what I'm referencing though: Reefs: ... he wrote essentially the opposite: that "mind has to be somehow involved". What you might be thinking of (based on your mention of ZD's response) is what he wrote here: realization cannot be an experience. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 12, 2014 12:17:24 GMT -5
The cell that comprises your vagus nerve, for example, is, first off, simply an intellectual construct that's not separate from the system it's a part of. That cell never mistook itself for something that it wasn't and subsequently started wondering about how to re-integrate itself with the rest your body.
To say that it's already "self-realized" is a metaphor, and taking the metaphor literally and conflating it with the hypothetical of brain death is just nonsensical mind play.Metaphor is something YOU often use...Reefs not so much. Frequency of resort to the construct is irrelevant to the fact of whether or not he employed it this time. Why not just allow him to answer the questions that are being asked of him? Did you notice the double bind as you wrote it or were you unconscious of doing that? Do you enjoy the drama of pretending that 3rd party public replies interfere with your direct correspondence? Reminds me of this. a forum is different than a living room, where yu might be subjected to unwelcome conversation |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 12, 2014 15:22:15 GMT -5
I asked the question because Reefs was saying that mind is not involved in realization. I"m trying to ascertain the degree of absence he sees regarding mind's involvement. His answer of 'the cells are already self-realized' is interesting to say the least...and seems to indicate that perhaps he didn't see the question as far out there as you did. If he'd actually discuss it further, I might get to find out . No, he never wrote that or anything like it ... in fact, in what you seem to take as the reference to that: This in particular is what I'm referencing though: Reefs: ... he wrote essentially the opposite: that "mind has to be somehow involved". What you might be thinking of (based on your mention of ZD's response) is what he wrote here: realization cannot be an experience. IN the quote I referenced, (see below) He wrote that "For experience to happen mind has to be somehow involved", but then goes on to say that 'realization cannot be an experience.' (Please note: he is talking about the mind's involvement in experience there, NOT realization.) Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/user/993/recent#ixzz3LiQ27uJPHe also goes further to say "realization is prior/beyond mind." In that quote, it seems pretty clear to me that he is characterizing realization to be beyond mind involvement...and if he did not mean that, I'm giving him the opportunity to clarify that for me. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2014 13:20:51 GMT -5
No, he never wrote that or anything like it ... in fact, in what you seem to take as the reference to that: ... he wrote essentially the opposite: that "mind has to be somehow involved". What you might be thinking of (based on your mention of ZD's response) is what he wrote here: IN the quote I referenced, (see below) He wrote that "For experience to happen mind has to be somehow involved", but then goes on to say that 'realization cannot be an experience.' (Please note: he is talking about the mind's involvement in experience there, NOT realization.) Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/user/993/recent#ixzz3LiQ27uJPHe also goes further to say "realization is prior/beyond mind." In that quote, it seems pretty clear to me that he is characterizing realization to be beyond mind involvement...and if he did not mean that, I'm giving him the opportunity to clarify that for me. Yes, reefs is very clear on both of the ideas that realization isn't an experience and is transcendent of mind. "Transcendent" isn't a word that he'd use but one that you and andy use in the way that I take these ideas to all fit together. Notice that realization used in this way isn't going to result in any logical consistency with respect to any notion of a material realist (physical) experience. E's written quite a bit about mind involvement in terms of realization. If you are genuinely curious, you might try asking reefs his opinions about the process of "informing mind". |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 13, 2014 20:49:20 GMT -5
Yes, reefs is very clear on both of the ideas that realization isn't an experience and is transcendent of mind. So..what the heck was the post of yours below about??..... And no, as you say, he's never used the term 'transcendence of mind,' when speaking about realization, so that bit is inaccurate. Why not Stop trying to answer the questions put to Reefs and allow him to answer them himself? It's almost as though you're afraid he's gonna 'screw up' or something...so you try to beat him to the punch..putting words in his mouth. I'm interested here in a dialogue with Reefs...not your assumptions about what Reefs might actually mean. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3793/never-learn?page=2#ixzz3LpgKsUEaWhere did he say something opposite? where did he say mind has to be somehow involved in realization?? Go back and read his actual quote...he was saying there that mind has to be somehow involved in "Experience"..and that realization is NOT an experience. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2014 20:53:21 GMT -5
Click this link, and read the big green letters. |
|
Maybe I misinterpreted your pointing-finger kanji. You'll have to translate.
